Home > Planning > Planning Policy

PLEASE NOTE: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - Duty to Cooperate

Representation ID: 11936

COMMENT Home Builders Federation (HBF) (Mr Mark Behrendt)

Summary:

Consistency between plans within an HMA reduces the complexity for all applicants operating within the area and should be a key aim for the four authorities and it will be important that there is a high degree of commonality between these Plans.

More details about Rep ID: 11936

Representation ID: 10733

OBJECT Orwell Ahead (Mr Mark Ling) and 2 others

Summary:

The Orwell Peninsula is best placed to deliver an ambitious and coordinated housing plan. No other conurbation in Suffolk has scope for this growth. IHMA and IFEA will fail if not equipped democratically or given resources, infrastructure and space necessary to accommodate demand (for approximately 24,000 homes).
The "Duty to cooperate" is wholly inadequate. There must be a single local plan for the Greater Ipswich and Felixstowe area. The IPA must have permanent and proportionate representation at SCC Cabinet/Committee. There should be a single service provider for Suffolk, with 3 elected executive bodies covering East Suffolk, West Suffolk and Orwell.

More details about Rep ID: 10733

Representation ID: 9301

COMMENT Transport for London (Mr Richard Carr)

Summary:

Thank you for consulting Transport for London (TfL). I can confirm that TfL has no comments to make on the consultation documents

More details about Rep ID: 9301

Representation ID: 9153

OBJECT Wendy Shorrock

Summary:

Ipswich should not be imposing 4000 new houses under this Duty to cooperate rule. How is Ipswich's total overspill requirement being spread across other surrounding councils?

More details about Rep ID: 9153

Representation ID: 8718

OBJECT Mrs Hannah Lord-Vince

Summary:

* Ipswich say they have insufficient land to meet their projected housing numbers which means under the 'Duty to Cooperate' surrounding district councils must assist in finding land to accommodate Ipswich housing overspill. In this case around 4000 dwellings - how are Babergh proposing to help meet this requirement? Babergh should NOT be picking up all 4000.

More details about Rep ID: 8718

Representation ID: 6883

COMMENT Mrs Linda Rushton

Summary:

As a layman, I found this section of the Joint Local Plan impossible to understand or comment upon.

More details about Rep ID: 6883

Representation ID: 6689

COMMENT Mr Peter Powell

Summary:

This is going to be a national requirement along with transparency and publication of progress so it needs to be addressed and the council appears to have a grip on that issue. However although not part of the specific requirement there are also requirements to cooperate and communicate at Parish/Town council and community levels but consultation rarely takes place until statutory consultee stages are reached.

More details about Rep ID: 6689

Representation ID: 6320

OBJECT MSDC Green Group (Cllr John Matthissen)

Summary:

The framework of the JLP is to cherry pick the NPPF and to ignore not only the letter of that document but also its spirit of a bottom up process based on local involvement at the community level.
See our submission for a fuller critique

More details about Rep ID: 6320

Representation ID: 6066

COMMENT Sproughton Parish Council (Mrs Susan Frankis)

Summary:

The JLP duty to cooperate is seen solely in the context of section 110 of the Localism Act and part 2 of the Town & Country Planning Regulations 2012. The framework of the JLP seems to cherry pick the NPPF and to ignore the letter of that document but also the spirit of a bottom up process based on local involvement at the community level.
It is not clear where authority is derived to ignore the NPPF as a whole document. The present process of consultation is not a substitute for proper engagement.

More details about Rep ID: 6066

Representation ID: 4532

COMMENT Woolverstone Parish Council (Mr Simon Pearce)

Summary:

Building the right type of housing in the right place to meet the identified need is quite right. Infrastructure needs to be provided.

More details about Rep ID: 4532

Representation ID: 3803

COMMENT Mr Alan Squirrell

Summary:

Whilst under the Localism Act 2011, BDC may feel compelled to be bullied by the concrete jungle living, unnatural whims of people who care NOTHING for long term stability (ie politicians ). The key word is SUSTAINABLE. Let the authorities build the infrastructure, and support existing population, rather than cutting back on services. ONLY at this point would 'sustainable' be relevant.
South Ipswich, with its unique environment, wildlife, flood plains etc. should be eternally preserved as is. Without trees, bees, EVERYTHING dies, including US. So much for 'progress'.

More details about Rep ID: 3803

Representation ID: 3742

COMMENT Mrs Louise Baldry

Summary:

It is not acceptable to expect Babergh to pick up all or the majority of the 4000 houses expected to be built by Ipswich due to its land short fall. All surrounding areas need to be considered and if all areas agreed to the national expectation of 10% growth in villages/towns then the spread would be much more even, acceptable and the impact would be much less than a huge development would cause in 1 area.

More details about Rep ID: 3742

Representation ID: 2900

COMMENT Wortham & Burgate Parish Council (mrs Netty Verkroost)

Summary:

If the Council invests in upgrading the infrastructure along with new housing provision the plan should be successful.

More details about Rep ID: 2900

Representation ID: 1528

COMMENT Mrs Elizabeth Schmitt

Summary:

Proportionate development.
Consideration of all developments on current and potential road congestion.

More details about Rep ID: 1528

Representation ID: 737

OBJECT Mr. Nick Miller for Sudbury Green Belt Group

Summary:

This system isn't fit for purpose, eg on Environmental Protection two partners are elitist because they do not consult locally, and also lack local knowledge: Historic England and Natural England. Our detailed response shows the general approach is of "what we can't do" which is contrary to the NPPF in matters of Environmental Protection.

More details about Rep ID: 737

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult